– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup

<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/03/08-dxwgdcat-minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/03/08-dxwgdcat-minutes

Responding to one of the Nobu's questions

riccardoAlbertoni: the question is about the class dcat:CatalogRecord
… using dct:conformsTo, can you cite examples of "schema, semantics, syntax" mentioned in the NOTE?
… sometimes you need to refer to the metadata of the metadata, this is when you instantiate the CatalogRecord

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/#ex-catalog-record,

riccardoAlbertoni: commenting on the catalog in the link

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#ex-dataset

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-549025928

riccardoAlbertoni: it can be compared with the other example (3) and both provide issued date but the first for when the dataset was issued in the catalog and the second for when the dataset was issued in general
… why to use dct:conformsTo with dcat:CatalogRecord - one classic case is to say that the metadata is compliant with a DCAT profile

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-549072844

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-549072844

riccardoAlbertoni: if you look at the discussion in issue 1130, you can see that there is another comment
… in which Makx provided different examples of conformsTo depending on to what you applied to

AndreaPerego: was trying to find some examples
… for example with the data quality vocabulary

<AndreaPerego> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#ExpressConformanceWithStandard

AndreaPerego: in this case conformsTo is used for the schema of the metadata record

<AndreaPerego> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/#quality-conformance-statement

AndreaPerego: the main point is that you are referring about the metadata record

riccardoAlbertoni: providing an example for this would be an option, we can create an issue

<riccardoAlbertoni> proposed: adding an example showing the joint use of dcat:catalogRecord and dcterms:conformsTo

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

RESOLUTION: adding an example showing the joint use of dcat:catalogRecord and dcterms:conformsTo

next WD

riccardoAlbertoni: is there anything missing for the last WD?
… in the last plenary there was a suggestion for people to revise the current draft
… if there are no showstoppers, we should vote on the next PWD to be approved in the next plenary
… there is a group of items

alejandra: suggesting to send an email to the list rather than relying on people reading the minutes from the plenary

AndreaPerego: what we usually do is to create a poll for that
… it would be good to have it in any case, check with Peter and Caroline

riccardoAlbertoni: agreed, if this meeting concludes that we are not far from the PWD

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adataset-series%2Clabel%3Aversioning

riccardoAlbertoni: after this, there should be a wider review of 90 days before moving to CR
… so, I'm ok about the 4th PWD, but unsure about wider review yet

AndreaPerego: don't have an opinion, somethingt to raise in the plenary

AndreaPerego: there would be more work to do, but depends on deadlines
… what we have is quite substantial
… as we are following an agile approach, we can continue

alejandra: just as a reminder that we would need the two independent implementations of the new features if we go for CR at this point

riccardoAlbertoni: implementation can be collected during the review period after publishing CR

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adataset-series%2Clabel%3Aversioning

riccardoAlbertoni: we need to consider the time

AndreaPerego: if I remember well, Philippe mentioned that we can mark the new features as 'at risk'

AndreaPerego: what we did for the previous implementation report (DCAT2) was tried to motivate the inclusion of the new features, highlighting that these were added as gaps found from previous implementation experiences
… especially most recent properties

https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adataset-series

alejandra: agree with the agile approach and release often if we can, one suggestion would be to look at all the remaining issues of the new features, such as those in the link, which are three of dataset series
… also what does it mean to add a feature at risk?

riccardoAlbertoni: you can keep it as non-normative, but you wouldn't reach the normative status of the feature
… depending on the feature at risk, the other part can be incosistent, so we need to consider this carefully

<AndreaPerego> Current W3C Process Document: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/

https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#transition-cr

AndreaPerego: we need to consult Philippe

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adataset-series%2Clabel%3Aversioning

riccardoAlbertoni: let's look at the 3 remaining issues on dataset series
… the schema.org mapping could be addressed after publication
… the following one is about a specific example
… it is very specific - DCAT proposes some possible solution
… discussion on Maxk proposal
… don't expect that this issue will give a problem to the normative part
… my strategy would be to reply and put on the table our option
… any different view?

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1395

alejandra: question about the relationship between Dataset and DatasetSeries

riccardoAlbertoni: a hierarchical DatasetSeries - we can have 3 owners of the three elements
… we can represent this in DCAT
… there can be an owner for the aggregation and an owner for individual elements

AndreaPerego: this issue was considering in too much detail the definition of dataset (curated for a single agent)
… typical case when there is a number of activities to show an integrated view
… different organisations playing different roles
… we should define those roles

alejandra: should we consider removing the 'single agent' mention?

AndreaPerego: there may be other implications, we can start clarifying the different roles of the organisations
… still unclear how to integrate the use case
… outside the scope of DCAT

riccardoAlbertoni: we should check the PRs

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1484

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1486

proposed: add property dcat:inCatalog as inverse of dcat:resourcde

proposed: add property dcat:inCatalog as inverse of dcat:resource

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: add property dcat:inCatalog as inverse of dcat:resource

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1085

riccardoAlbertoni: The issue about DBpedia ^^

riccardoAlbertoni: It's a long thread, and they haven't replied once we mentioned that now DCAT includes series and versions.
… I don't think this can be solved before 4FPWD.
… Anyway, what should we do to get them involved again?

AndreaPerego: No idea.

<riccardoAlbertoni> proposed: we agree we can address the remaining issues about versioning and dataset series after the pubblication as they don't impact the core of proposed solution

proposed: the remaining issues about series will not be addressed in the 4FPWD, and reconsidered in the future

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: the remaining issues about series will not be addressed in the 4FPWD, and reconsidered in the future

[meeting adjourned]